Case 5:13-cv-00143-ACC-PRL Document 134 Filed 05/05/15 Page 1 of 3 PageID 5876

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 5:13-00143-ACC-PRL
LARRY KLAYMAN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CITY PAGES et al.,
Defendants.
______________________/
DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Defendants submit their response to Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration (the Motion)
[ECF No. 133]. The Motion should be denied for the following reasons:
Plaintiffs filing of the Motion is exactly what the Court said would place him at [ ] risk
of facing sanctions from the Court (Order [ECF No. 124], p.32). The Motion, which seeks relief
under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, does not identify an intervening change
in controlling law or any new evidence that was previously unavailable to Plaintiff. Plaintiff argues
that reconsideration is necessary to correct what he says are errors and, consequently, to prevent
what he says would be manifest injustice if he were to lose this case but he does not and cannot
identify any manifest errors of law or fact. See Jacobs v. Tempur-Pedic International, Inc.,
626 F.3d 1327, 1344 (11th Cir. 2010) (quoting Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir.
2005)) (additional internal citations omitted).
Instead, Plaintiff makes clear his disagreement and dissatisfaction with the Courts
reasoning and conclusions, but that decidedly is not a basis for relief under Rule 59(e). See, e.g.,
Jacobs, 626 F.3d at 1344 (Having read Jacobss motion, we conclude that it did nothing but ask

Case 5:13-cv-00143-ACC-PRL Document 134 Filed 05/05/15 Page 2 of 3 PageID 5877

the district court to reexamine an unfavorable ruling. Reconsidering the merits of a judgment,
absent a manifest error of law or fact, is not the purpose of Rule 59. . . . Jacobss remedy, if he
thought the district courts ruling was wrong, was to appeal . . . .); Travis v. Secretary, DOC, 2013
WL 5596395 at *1 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 11, 2013) (quoting Quaker Alloy Casting Co. v. Gulfco Indus.,
Inc., 123 F.R.D. 282, 288 (N.D. Ill. 1988)) (Court opinions are not intended as mere first drafts,
subject to revision and reconsideration at a litigants pleasure.); Garrett v. Stanton, 2010 WL
320492 at *2 (S.D. Ala. Jan. 18, 2010) (Far too often, litigants operate under the flawed
assumption that any adverse ruling on a dispositive motion confers upon them license to move for
reconsideration, vacatur, alteration or amendment as a matter of course, and to utilize that motion
as a platform to criticize the judges reasoning, to relitigate issues that have already been decided,
to champion new arguments that could have been made before, and otherwise to attempt a doover to erase a disappointing outcome. This is improper. Lamentably, the frequency of such
knee-jerk Rule 59(e) motions in this District Court appears to have risen of late, to the point
where such filings by summary judgment losers have become virtually automatic. To be clear, the
undersigned views the pro forma filing of Rule 59(e) motions, in derogation of applicable legal
standards, as an abusive practice that wastes considerable judicial and litigant resources, and
implicates Rule 11.).

Case 5:13-cv-00143-ACC-PRL Document 134 Filed 05/05/15 Page 3 of 3 PageID 5878

There is no reason or basis for the Court to reconsider, alter, or amend its Final Judgment
or its Order granting Defendants dispositive motion for summary judgment. The Motion should
be denied.
Respectfully submitted,
HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
Attorneys for Defendants
701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3300
Miami, Florida 33131
(305) 374-8500 (telephone)
(305) 789-7799 (facsimile)
By: /s/ Scott D. Ponce
Sanford L. Bohrer (FBN 160643)
Scott D. Ponce (FBN 0169528)
Email: sbohrer@hklaw.com
Email: sponce@hklaw.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 5th day of May 2015, I electronically filed the foregoing
with the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF System.
/s/ Scott D. Ponce

3
#35464561_v1